Surrounding it of course are various other messages and happenings - Earth Hour; the never ending sales for shopaholics; Hollywoods latest tranch of movies .. some of which are rather good; and of course the need to be heard above the clutter. The one thing they’ve had in common is a sometimes not so gentle reminder of the cardinal rule:

Regardless of whether you’re trying to sell a product, a story or even yourself - it’s the message that matters.

The past few weeks have seen numerous meetings and conversations where marketeers, the dude at the corner coffee shop and journalists who should know better going on about the need for greater diversity in “how” various businesses, politicians and NGOs get their messages out there.

But in this ever greater need for “the next big idea” or “more diveristy” or - the one that makes me grind my teeth - “thinking out of the box”, we often forget the message.

Newspapers. Online portals. Broadcast. Radio. Blogs. Social Media. New Media. Traditional Media. Advertising. Marketing. Guerilla Marketing. The list is endless but in the end these are merely means to an end.

It is and will remain the quality of your story - your message - that will determine whether or not people see you, hear you, remember you and most importantly - engage with you on a long term basis.

And long term is especially important given the cost of acquisition for an audience or customer and these current economic conditions isn’t it?

Get back to the basics and ask yourself - so, what’s my message?

Have you seen great examples of well told stories delivered in innovative ways recently? What about companies or individuals who’ve been doing a great job delivering consistency in their storytelling?

Businesses typically have a choice of deciding where they spend their marketing dollars. This is great if you’re a great big company with endless budgets toplay with - you just spend it everywhere and eventually something sticks. The smarter ones take the time to make sure it all sticks … but you get what I mean.

But what if you’re a small or medium sized business? A non-profit? An educational institution? Cause related? What then? Do you go for volume or influence.

If you had to choose, where would you lean to - finding the 10 people who really matter and courting them, or talking to a 1000 and hoping you hit the right spot from time to time?

Now, there are numerous descriptions and opinions around these terms but for the sake of this post let’s use the following:

Volume would be the amount of noise you create. Online, offline and through the line - regardless of whether its paid advertising, free publicity courtesy of word of mouth or media coverage, or even ground marketing events for that matter.

Influence or Value would be the actual audiences or people you speak to - and who listen and maybe even speak back.

So here’s an example - you have two sites. They’re both bloggers. One has 10000 visitors a month. Very active indeed from that point of view. Another has 1000.

Easy as pie to decide which one is the better site right - or is it?

After all, what if the 1000 people on the second site were actual consumers, decision makers, fully engaged and involved participants in the blog’s community? What if they were in turn influencers and able to help other people use products or services from that company?

Granted, the first angle of volume would also give you some sales. Create some buzz. Drive value.

So, it brings us back to the question of Volume or Value.

Personally, I think Apple, Nike and Toyota’s Prius line of cars are good examples of brands that have to some extent struck a balance between volume and value.

Which do you think works better and more importantly, can we have both? Do you have examples of these?

The arguments for the chicken and for the egg … and vice versa are often well thought out, rational and if you’re lucky hilarious. Thing is, there isn’t really a good answer to it.

Is the same true for the question of what role branding/ public relations (PR) and marketing have in terms of product design?

I think so. A long time advocate of the “PR at the head table” crowd, I can’t tell you how many times the grapple has come as the campaign’s I and the team worked on had to justify the ‘marketing’ and ‘pr’ pointers given by numerous companies for what they thought were great solutions, products or services. Thing is - they weren’t.

Sure they made better widgets. Of course they were incrementally better. Or maybe they came up with many colored widgets. But a widget is a widget is a widget and no matter how many times you spin it. The disconnect happened because the engineers were building what they taught consumers wanted. Consumers were talking to marketing and public relations people. No one was talking to each other.

On the other hand, some companies have everyone sitting at the same table. They talk about products and needs at the same time - and in real time. They stay focused on create products and services that actually answer a need. Remarkable products. Functional products. Marketable products.

Companies today are locked into an ever higher stake battle for the next big thing. The next ‘IT’ product, technology or service. Conversely, a designer/engineer/CEO who can think of function, form and marketing/branding/public relations at the same time is an ever more valuable commodity.

A recent piece by Fast Company on John Maeda -  Digital Thinking at Rhode Island School of Design echoes this point. A world reknowned design school bringing a world class technologist and two different schools of thought together. Imagine that!

Some would say that this is the only way to go - and I’d be one of them!

Design is good for business. More importantly, it makes sense.

Do you have examples of companies and brands that get users, designers, marketeers, public relations and brand people together at the same table? Who are they? What do they make?

Some years ago, I was privileged enough to spend some time around a group of businessmen who took it on themselves to mentor a group of young entreprenuers.

The lessons were many. Parables and stories were the weapons of choice when it came to peeling away the layers of misconception and we-know-what’s-right that we all bore.

But one of the most common topics that were reinforced to us over and over again was the need to read.

Leaders Read & Readers Lead

Constantly. Everything. About everything. From everyone.

To just keep on reading till there wasn’t anything let to read …and then to start all over again.

There was one story in particular that one of them told us that stuck with me.

In Malaysia, books aren’t as cheap as you would expect. While a book in the United States by thinkers like Seth Godin or Tom Peters could be in the USD20 or so range, books here (especially business related ones) tend to start at Ringgit Malaysia or RM50 onwards. Big difference when you do a dollar for dollar comparison.

Now what this does is make it even more challenging to decide on what to get and then commit to getting it.

However, the reasoning given by this *now* retired mentor of mine was this: I’d be paying a mere RM50 (that’s about USD20 to USD30) for a book. That much was true. But I wasn’t paying for just a bunch of pages with words on it. I was paying for the privilege to acquire and learn from a man/woman’s experience.

Effectively I was buying someone’s lifetime of knowledge and very quickly learning from them!

Now when you think about it in those terms, isn’t it much more relevant?

It helps if you love to read. But even if you don’t it is something that any professional - and more so a public relations or branding professional - must do. We have to stay on the cutting edge of everything - business, politics, technology, society, luxury goods and fashion … the list is endless.

How else can we truly have an informed opinion and a seat at the table when it comes time to explore, advance, enhance and extend the messages and the knowledge of our clients and our own firms?

Check out the list of 100 books that every PR person should read on this blog. It’s a work in progress and it’s a start. But then again - you’ve already taken the first step by reading this blog.

So what do you think? How important is reading more then just blogs, magazines or newspapers? Are books still relevant?

This was the gist of rants that came to my attention - both in the form of conversations in the flesh and online as well as in various news pieces and pundits on soap boxes.

What tripped up the collective wisdom?

Well, it seems that CNN - that super credible source of all things news related *personal opinions aside* - has a section of its online presence called iReport. Yes, we’re all familiar with it - and if you’re not then you should be.

In principle it’s a great idea. The network offers joe/ jane public the opportunity and means to post just about anything they like as long as it’s news related.

The site’s tagline after all is “See it First. Your Stories. No Boundaries.” Now that should be your first clue right there - speed, the lack of boundaries and the quest to see your (meaning anyone’s) stories … they never claimed accuracy in there.

Thing is, iReport ran a ‘citizen journalism’ piece that claimed that Apple’s maestro extraordinaire Steve Jobs suffered a heart attack last Friday!

Given the personal brand affinity between Jobs and Apple, and his past medical woes, the market reacted predictably and dropped its valuations of Apple faster than you could say MacBook Pro.

Although Apple has denied the rumor and since corrected *mostly* the public’s perception of the supposed issue, it wasn’t quite fast enough as the the sharp drop in Apple’s stock price can attest to. Blogs such as Silicon Alley Insider initially published the rumor as written on CNN with the 21st century fig leaf (according to Cnet.com) –a question mark at the end of the headline–but updated its story after hearing from Apple representatives. CNN has since removed the post in question.

So yes, a mistake was made. Someone posted a fake story. Big deal right?

Trouble is, the story caused investors to dump stock. Now, whose fault it that. Did social media and online reporting cause that?

I think that’s the easy way to lay blame and the one that some people are taking. Which is ridiculous! As an investor, the onus is on you to check, double check and triple check your sources. So one news site ran a story - you dump stock based on that? Not much of an investor are you then!

Further, conspiracy theories aside, given Apple’s history with various sources constantly calling Jobs’ health into question, it wouldn’t be too much of a srech to imagine someone/ group trying to benefit from a pre-planned drop instock value. An investigation will probably follow this incident and someone will cap the blame.

But seriously - when dealing with any information source, whether it’s a friend in your office, an adviser, a stock analyst or even a good ol’ newspaper - the onus is on you as an investor (and an adult!) to check your facts before you decide what to do. And this applies to journalist’s as well - online and offline.

The Internet has made sharing information quick, efficient and easy. Unfortunately it has also made sharing lies even easier.

The speed at which we demand and consume information online unfortunately seems to have loosened some of the more obvious demands for veracity and caution in sharing of information - but much like you would with a fast car and how you drive it, this merely calls for more care and attention. Not putting the brakes on it per se.

Sometimes -  in the excitement of Web 2.0, social media, blogging, and any number of the various forms through which we share information and attempt to stay ahead of the curve - we forget this.

The Apple incident is only the latest in a long string of similar incidents. And sadly, I don’t think it’s going to be the last. Not by a long shot.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I just heard that they colonised the moon two hours ago and if you get in line at Kennedy you can get a free ticket on their low cost space shuttle flights - 0.99 one way with meals and air to breathe being optional.

What do you think - where does the blame for the lack of verification lie? And should be suspend our efforts to engage or participate online further … or should we redouble our efforts?

Sources: Cnet, CNN, Silicon Alley Insider

Part of the job or a pr/ branding practitioner these days includes being up to date on everything from politics to what’s hot on television. To that end, the daily dose of newspapers - both digital and physical - and magazines have become a must for me. However, aside from scanning (or trawling) through the sites and pages quickly, there are some online and offline publications that I take the time to look at closely. To really read the articles. To comment. To link to.

However, I’ve often wondered just how good the mainstream news sites were at linking to sites outside of their own.

My own experience in the early days of helping the leading national English language daily in Malaysia build its online presence  and their subsequent growth over the years didn’t exactly inspire much confidence in the idea of newspapers that linked willingly.

While sites like Digg made linking to other sites a core part of its business model, a little digging online - no pun intended - revealed that more and more news organisations were getting comfortable with the idea as well. But did this strategy work - or did it draw attention away from a reader?

Well, according to this story, linking does indeed work online.

The UK based search engine optimisation firm behind the look at how news organisation’s link, found that the higher link in’s to a news site were directly proportionate to the amount of links that it had going out from its site.

	Links out			Links
Newspaper	Main stories	Blog posts	Domain Strength	Incoming	Outgoing
			99%	29,629,082	1,730,000
			99%	18,415,777	970,000
			88%	25,667,372	1,940,000
			97%	15,114,877	1,600,000
			87%	14,421,388	722,000
			98%	11,986,781	729,000
			99%	11,867,676	1,080,000
			97%	9,968,336	1,360,000
			92%	7,862,887	254,000
			97%	7,038,634	474,000
			92%	5,980,262	275,000
			83%	5,434,310	357,000
			88%	4,121,583	144,000
			93%	3,995,969	330,000
			97%	3,709,030	1,460,000
			96%	3,667,889	169,000
			83%	3,233,951	12,600
			92%	3,087,518	226,000
			90%	2,452,153	211,000
			88%	1,001,791	16,800
			78%	552,930	196,000
			74%	408,462	60,700
			60%	183,570	14,500
			60%	164,586	3,960
			58%	94,804	878
			48%	31,356	33

(source: The SEO Company)

True, in speaking to journalists at various publications the findings of the survey - which mirrored a quick straw poll locally - were that there were indeed policies in place that encouraged linking out. Challenges were inherent of course in implementing these policies and also in deciding the difference between ’sources’ and ‘links.’

I also found that magazine sites were more inclined to link to blogs or other news sites as they were more interested in keeping their news fresh online - not always easy with a fortnightly or monthly publication.

My two cents - Now while I understand that a news site needs to make money and keeping a visitor on your site helps you do that, I personally find myself spending more time returning to sites that offer me more value. This does not mean I don’t stop and look at the others - it’s just that I would not spend too much effort talking about them, thinking about them or recommending them.

And is this not the reason you’re online in the first place - to start a conversation and keep it going?

This can be in the form of:

• cutting edge news analysis which goes beyond the wire stories
• reviews that are as relevant as they are fair (even if you are being paid to blog)
• access to experts in the field as well as the man/woman in the street
• thought leaders
• trend setters
• links to other information that is relevant

This last is especially useful as it helps me place the information in context.

It helps round out my thoughts. It inspires me. And most importantly - there is never a single correct answer - just opinions that are closer to or further away from my own. And that last point I think is where links become even more important as they allow a writer to share their opinion and still back it up with facts and figures from other sources.

Should we offer links to opposing points of view? That’s a whole different kettle of fish.

What are your thoughts on this? And if you have any kind of quantitative views on how Asian or Malaysian sites are doing on this please do share them.

So how does a company make or break its brand? This was the thought that preoccupied me following a recent encounter with my company’s primary bank.

Public relations and branding are often (or at least it seems) seen as silver bullets in the quest for the perfect customer experience.

I’ve heard various forms of these arguments - from the ‘If you make it something that they aspire to they’ll want it;’ to ‘Association is key and then you get the media to write about it;’ and of course the other extreme of ‘Advertise enough about the brand and we’ll get those customers flocking to us!‘

Of course I’m exaggerating a little in the examples above, but the bottom-line is that many of my clients and indeed many businesses and brands out there today, imagine that a great brand takes nothing more then making sure the fundamentals of brand-building and public relations are executed well.

What we sometimes forget is that fundamentals of a brand include each and every member of the team.

That’s right - everyone in the company from the janitor to the CEO is a brand ambassador. And there are few things that can dismantle if not totally undo a radical, well executed and effective public relations or branding campaign quite so fast as a bad employee, or one with a bad attitude.

So, back to the story.

This bank - which prides itself on being global and thinking local - had a great reputation. Nice offices. Friendly folk … but absolutely crashed and burned on customer service when it came time to deliver.

I had at that point been looking for a bank to do business with for Arcis Communications, and having been recommended by an adviser of mine approached this bank - lets call it H.

So here I am, sitting at H’s office and wading my way through a ream of forms. A friendly customer care consultant was of course on hand to help me - problem was that I knew more about their systems then she did! This included what forms were required, what forms were not required and what could and could not be done for a business like mine by H.

Now the part that stung me the most was that this bank in particular charged more for their service fees then many of their competitors - a point they insisted was due to the premium services, peace of mind and ease of doing business that they offered.

So I get past the submission process.

Which wasn’t the end of the nightmare. What was supposed to be a simple 7 day process of getting an account and having my new cheque books couriered to me dragged on for weeks.

No concrete answers. The customer care consultant started dodging calls and was flippant to the point of being rude when queried on the delay. Constant requests for the wrong documents - which added to my costs and wasted even more of both mine and my team’s time. Delays in getting the cheque book - which H subsequently lost in transit - which resulted in my own suppliers experiencing delays in their payment.

You can understand the frustration that finally saw me approaching the bank with letters of termination for the new account as well as my personal accounts with the bank in question.

In addition to that, I had spoken to the person who recommended the bank to me and several of my associates and they were considering pulling their business out of the bank as well - both personally and professionally. The potential of an account error of this magnitude happening to them was too real.

It was at this point - where I had abandoned all pretenses of believing their explanations, suggestions and requests - that the customer services manager from the front office of the bank and the bank’s branch manager stepped in.

Working with us, the manager personally assured me that the issues would be resolved within 48 hours. In the meantime she had worked with the customer relations manager to allow for all my suppliers to be paid without the need for a cheque.

Now this point was significant as H was known for its security and adherence to policy - which made such a transaction virtually impossible.

Less then 12 hours later I received a call from the manager, the issues were resolved and our cheque books arrived the next day. What’s more, I was asked to write down what had happened so that they could ensure that it did not happen to anyone else (to the best of their abilities) and also provided with access to the manager to ensure that I had no more challenges from them.

To make a long story shorter, I’m still a customer of the bank.

The fact that they took the time to address what to them was a very small account - they had no idea of the other associates that I had or the other businesses housed there - made an impression on me.

What really worked was that among other things:

1. They admitted their mistakes
2. They made no further excuses
3. Senior members of their team - in this case the bank’s branch manager and then its front office customer relations manager - took the time to quickly and effectively solve my problems
4. They followed up for several weeks after that to make sure everything was alright

I’m recommending them to other businesses today. They’re not perfect but at least they’re doing more than just advertising how good they are.

They’re walking the talk … at least one of them. And that’s all it took.

So, what examples do you have of how just one person made an impact on how you viewed a brand or company - for the better or worse?